Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 1584

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount i.e Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty five lakhs), Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) vide Appeal Nos.143,144,145 of 2010 respectively, imposed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi for the contravention of the provisions of Sections 2(h), 8(1), 9(1)(a), 6(4), 6(5), 49, 64(2), 68, 73(3) of FERA, 1973 paras 29-A-3, 29-B-5, 29-B-8(a), 29-B-9(c) 29-B-4 of Chapter 29 of ECM, 1987. The applicant/appellant in Appeal No.143/2010 is a foreign bank, earlier it was named as ANZ Grindlays now, it has been merged with Standard Chartered Bank, who is carrying on its banking activities in accordance with law, whereas the applicants/appellants in Appeal No.144/20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntire money repatriate back to the country at a higher rate of Foreign Exchange, out of its own profits and therefore, any condition of pre-deposit would cause a great hardship on the Appellant. It is also emphasized that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the event of dispensing with the pre deposit of the penalty amount. It is also stated that there is a good prima facie case and in case, stay/waiver is not granted, the applicants/appellants would face undue hardship or otherwise. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants placed reliance on a catena of Authorities/judgment titled as Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 6 STT 13 (SC), Bank of Baroda v. ATFE [WP(C) No. 2570 and CM 1848 of 2005, decid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by Sh. Balesh Kumar, Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, we are of the view that legal position of law is discussed in the Authorities/judgment titled (supra). However, legal position of law is very much clear as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under (Relevant para 12 - 14) : 'Para 12 . There are two important expressions in Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. One is undue hardship. This is a matter within special knowledge of the applicant for the waiver and has to be established by him. A mere assertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noticed by this court in S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnatak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xpressions in Section 19(1). One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant for waiver and has to be established by him. A mere assertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noted by this Court in S. Vasudeva (supra) that under Indian conditions expression Undue hardship , is normally related to economic hardship. Undue , which means something which is not merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it Undue hardship is caused when the hardship is not warranted by the circumstances. 13. For a hardship to be 'undue' it must be shown that the particular burden to have to observe or perform the requirement is out of proportion to the nature of the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent and so far as the prayer for stay of operation of the order dated 14.05.2010 is concerned, no relief can be granted. 8. With this observation, the application of the applicants/appellants regarding waiver of pre-deposit and for stay of the impugned order, dated 14.05.2010 vide Appeal Nos. 143-145/2010 are disposed of. The applicants/appellants are directed to comply this order of the Tribunal within 30 days after its receipt, failing which their Appeals will not be heard on merits rather it will be dismissed on the sole ground of non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal. Now, the Appeals are fixed on 10.12.2013 for reporting the compliance of this order and for further hearing. Registry is directed to make immediate compli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates